Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1311196 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] README: cosmetic fixes

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] README: cosmetic fixes Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 00:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] README: cosmetic fixes Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> - 2016-01-18 10:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] README: cosmetic fixes Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 14:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] README: cosmetic fixes Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 21:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] README: cosmetic fixes Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> - 2016-01-18 23:50 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] README: cosmetic fixes Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 02:40 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] README: cosmetic fixes Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 03:50 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] README: cosmetic fixes Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 07:30 +0100

#1311196 — Re: [PATCH] README: cosmetic fixes

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
> I've applied this to the docs tree.  I'd sure rather see an effort to
> update this file instead of tweaking it, though.  For example:
>
>> @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ COMPILING the kernel:
>>     kernel image file is usually /vmlinuz, /boot/vmlinuz, /bzImage or
>>     /boot/bzImage.  To use the new kernel, save a copy of the old image
>>     and copy the new image over the old one.  Then, you MUST RERUN LILO
>> -   to update the loading map!! If you don't, you won't be able to boot
>> +   to update the loading map! If you don't, you won't be able to boot
>>     the new kernel image.
>>
>>     Reinstalling LILO is usually a matter of running /sbin/lilo.
>
> I somehow suspect that very few of us actually MUST RERUN LILO in 2015...
>
> Thanks,
>
> jon

Is there a reason this patch didn't make it for 4.5?

Diego

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1311425

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, Diego Viola wrote:

> Is there a reason this patch didn't make it for 4.5?

Diego, this is a second time I am CCed on some super-super-trivial patch 
from you, and you keep to be very persistent regarding the urge of pushing 
everything upstream ASAP.

Please understand that there are much more important things that need to 
end up in a particular kernel release, and purely cosmetic fixes (such as 
this one) simply have to wait for the particular maintainer to clean up 
low priority items (such as this one) from his queue.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1311560

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, Diego Viola wrote:
>
>> Is there a reason this patch didn't make it for 4.5?
>
> Diego, this is a second time I am CCed on some super-super-trivial patch
> from you, and you keep to be very persistent regarding the urge of pushing
> everything upstream ASAP.
>
> Please understand that there are much more important things that need to
> end up in a particular kernel release, and purely cosmetic fixes (such as
> this one) simply have to wait for the particular maintainer to clean up
> low priority items (such as this one) from his queue.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Jiri Kosina
> SUSE Labs
>

OK sorry about that, I thought they forgot to add my patch in the pull request.

Diego

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1311780

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, Diego Viola wrote:
>
>> Is there a reason this patch didn't make it for 4.5?
>
> Diego, this is a second time I am CCed on some super-super-trivial patch
> from you, and you keep to be very persistent regarding the urge of pushing
> everything upstream ASAP.
>
> Please understand that there are much more important things that need to
> end up in a particular kernel release, and purely cosmetic fixes (such as
> this one) simply have to wait for the particular maintainer to clean up
> low priority items (such as this one) from his queue.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Jiri Kosina
> SUSE Labs
>

The thing I'm unsure about is that the pull request contained trivial
changes from others as well, and my patch was trivial, yes.

So why not include my changes with the other trivial changes as well?

Diego

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1311836

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:53:02 -0200
Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> wrote:

> The thing I'm unsure about is that the pull request contained trivial
> changes from others as well, and my patch was trivial, yes.
> 
> So why not include my changes with the other trivial changes as well?

I set aside when I raised my initial complaint, and it stayed set aside.

I'll consider it again, but I'm not very enthusiastic about applying
stylistic fixes.  We really don't need trivial patch wars over how many
exclamation points belong on a given sentence.

Diego, I'd like to ask you to sit back a bit and think about what you are
really trying to accomplish.  Maintainers are busy people, and you place a
demand on their time whenever you post a patch.  That time is available in
*very* limited quantities for patches that don't really make the kernel
better.  Please think a bit about why you're doing this, and how you might
direct your energy toward creating changes that maintainers actively want
to apply.  That will leave everybody better off than nagging people about
cosmetic changes.

Thanks,

jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1311885

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:53:02 -0200
> Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The thing I'm unsure about is that the pull request contained trivial
>> changes from others as well, and my patch was trivial, yes.
>>
>> So why not include my changes with the other trivial changes as well?
>
> I set aside when I raised my initial complaint, and it stayed set aside.

After your complaint, I provided and suggested examples about
improving the section in the README that you complained about, I also
asked for your feedback, but you remained silent.

I was hoping to get your feedback and we would improve that section together.

>
> I'll consider it again, but I'm not very enthusiastic about applying
> stylistic fixes.  We really don't need trivial patch wars over how many
> exclamation points belong on a given sentence.

I understand, but the exclamation point is just one fix, there are
other fixes in my patch.

>
> Diego, I'd like to ask you to sit back a bit and think about what you are
> really trying to accomplish.  Maintainers are busy people, and you place a
> demand on their time whenever you post a patch.  That time is available in
> *very* limited quantities for patches that don't really make the kernel
> better.  Please think a bit about why you're doing this, and how you might
> direct your energy toward creating changes that maintainers actively want
> to apply.  That will leave everybody better off than nagging people about
> cosmetic changes.

I'm just trying to improve the documentation, I want to improve the
state of the documentation and the README, why is this so hard to do?

I understand you don't have the time to review small patches like
mine, so wouldn't it make sense to delegate this work or activity to
someone else that has the time?

>
> Thanks,
>
> jon

Thanks,

Diego

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1311909

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:53:02 -0200
>> Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The thing I'm unsure about is that the pull request contained trivial
>>> changes from others as well, and my patch was trivial, yes.
>>>
>>> So why not include my changes with the other trivial changes as well?
>>
>> I set aside when I raised my initial complaint, and it stayed set aside.
>
> After your complaint, I provided and suggested examples about
> improving the section in the README that you complained about, I also
> asked for your feedback, but you remained silent.
>
> I was hoping to get your feedback and we would improve that section together.
>
>>
>> I'll consider it again, but I'm not very enthusiastic about applying
>> stylistic fixes.  We really don't need trivial patch wars over how many
>> exclamation points belong on a given sentence.
>
> I understand, but the exclamation point is just one fix, there are
> other fixes in my patch.
>
>>
>> Diego, I'd like to ask you to sit back a bit and think about what you are
>> really trying to accomplish.  Maintainers are busy people, and you place a
>> demand on their time whenever you post a patch.  That time is available in
>> *very* limited quantities for patches that don't really make the kernel
>> better.  Please think a bit about why you're doing this, and how you might
>> direct your energy toward creating changes that maintainers actively want
>> to apply.  That will leave everybody better off than nagging people about
>> cosmetic changes.
>
> I'm just trying to improve the documentation, I want to improve the
> state of the documentation and the README, why is this so hard to do?
>
> I understand you don't have the time to review small patches like
> mine, so wouldn't it make sense to delegate this work or activity to
> someone else that has the time?
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> jon
>
> Thanks,
>
> Diego

Would you consider my patch if I send another patch that addresses the
complaint you brought it up?

No rush, apologies for that.

Diego

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1311951

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:53:02 -0200
>>> Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The thing I'm unsure about is that the pull request contained trivial
>>>> changes from others as well, and my patch was trivial, yes.
>>>>
>>>> So why not include my changes with the other trivial changes as well?
>>>
>>> I set aside when I raised my initial complaint, and it stayed set aside.
>>
>> After your complaint, I provided and suggested examples about
>> improving the section in the README that you complained about, I also
>> asked for your feedback, but you remained silent.
>>
>> I was hoping to get your feedback and we would improve that section together.
>>
>>>
>>> I'll consider it again, but I'm not very enthusiastic about applying
>>> stylistic fixes.  We really don't need trivial patch wars over how many
>>> exclamation points belong on a given sentence.
>>
>> I understand, but the exclamation point is just one fix, there are
>> other fixes in my patch.
>>
>>>
>>> Diego, I'd like to ask you to sit back a bit and think about what you are
>>> really trying to accomplish.  Maintainers are busy people, and you place a
>>> demand on their time whenever you post a patch.  That time is available in
>>> *very* limited quantities for patches that don't really make the kernel
>>> better.  Please think a bit about why you're doing this, and how you might
>>> direct your energy toward creating changes that maintainers actively want
>>> to apply.  That will leave everybody better off than nagging people about
>>> cosmetic changes.
>>
>> I'm just trying to improve the documentation, I want to improve the
>> state of the documentation and the README, why is this so hard to do?
>>
>> I understand you don't have the time to review small patches like
>> mine, so wouldn't it make sense to delegate this work or activity to
>> someone else that has the time?
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> jon
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Diego
>
> Would you consider my patch if I send another patch that addresses the
> complaint you brought it up?
>
> No rush, apologies for that.
>
> Diego

I've just sent a new email that I hope will address the complaints you
mentioned earlier.

Diego

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web